Midday Long Exposure | No ND

What do you have against filters?
I like the experimentation and applaud the effort and learning curve in PS.
I just don't understand why the negative attitude toward filters.

i dont like dealing with them and landscape photography is not my forte, so it's not something i want to invest in.
 
Well, I know I'm late to the game here, but interesting technique. Thanks for sharing your experiment. I'm not sure why so many people are viewing your experiment as an attack on filters. It's no different than finding an alternative method to steady your camera in case you forgot your tripod. Nobody bats an eye when someone talks at length about how to properly hold the camera to steady it when one could simply say, "hogwash, you should just be using a tripod!" Then the argument would go, "but what if i dont have a tripod or want to carry one?" And the reply, "too bad, its a proven method, you shouldn't focus on alternative methods when we have a perfecly good method that works."

There's more than one way to skin a cat, and I think it's always helpful to have more than one method or tool to achieve the same goal. Makes one a more versitile photographer.
 
Thanks. exactly.

I was trying something out and posted my results. It didn't go exactly as planned, but I'm hoping to try again and refine it better. I much enjoy long-exposed landscape shots where the sky/water is blurred, but I don't have any ND filters to accomplish that (and don't necessarily want to buy any).

So I was sitting there watching the clouds roll by thinking this would be a great chance to try something out. I learned that I need more frames with shorter intervals, then I need to work on some frame better blending method. I have a feeling water will end up working better than the clouds.

But that link I provided to that flickr set is very similar to what I was trying to capture, but I want to blend the frames.



:) i didn't even use a tripod.

one of the shots the camera was sitting on top of a beach bag. the other shot the camera was precariously balancing on a fence post with a small piece of driftwood giving it the vertical tilt it needed to frame the shot.


also: I shot the moon on Sunday using vibration control active, while the camera was on a tripod... I heard kittens dying in background.
 
I am assuming that because motion blur is highly dependant on distance <snip>
Actually it's not.
Motion blur is dependant on angular velocity. Slow moving things close up will give just the same blur as fast moving things further away if their angular velocity is the same.
I suspect the clouds where just a convenient way to investigate the technique. It should also work for other long exposure type images though the exposure details & number of images may need considerable tweaking. Combining multiple image for a very long exposure is fairly standard practice for star trails. Total exposure in many of the star trail shots I've seen have been measured in hours.
 
What do you have against filters?
I like the experimentation and applaud the effort and learning curve in PS.
I just don't understand why the negative attitude toward filters.

They cost quite a lot of money, need to be carried & can spoil the IQ if they didn't cost much. :345:
Perhaps more importantly some lenses don't allow a filter to be fitted. Fish eyes are a prime example.

Despite these disadvantages I probably use filters more than most, as I shoot a lot of IR with a full spectrum camera.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top